Attention: Chuck Nessa

[Aggie87]

Yeah, that's bullshit. This guy is reproducing and selling analog material in an analog domain. He's creating hard, not virtual, copies, and he's selling what is not his to sell.

Cut and dried theft, by well-established rules and precedents. Is that so hard to figure out?

Duh.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit.

In either case, the rightful people received no compensation.

Your tunnel vision is your prerogative, so as long as you're at it, why don't you ask proponents of euthanasia (or even better, pro-choice advocates) if they feel "ok" with a drive-by or a mass murder or if they think it's "wrong"? Put that lack of nuanced thinking on full display for us, ok?

And to be perfectly honest, if that kid had a choice between downloading a free copy of the box off of some blog, or paying beaucoup bodacious bucks for it from some "speculator" on eBay, I'd encourage him/her to download it from the blog - if all they wanted was to hear the music and not own an "object". But not before encouraging him/her to contacting Chuck first to see what the man himself could do.

Excuse me now. I just heard a song on the radio that i like, and it's the fourth time today I've heard it. 20th time over the last two weeks. I now have a moral obligation to buy it.

Hearing a song on the radio is apples and oranges, or else I don't get the comparison. I don't get that it's ok to download something that you aren't entitled to, but it's wrong to make copies of it physically and sell it. Either way it's wrong, isn't it?

And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong?

You keep trying to correlate the music thing with murder and other horrible crime (here and in our previous discussion about this), but it's simply not the same thing. What's wrong is wrong in either case, but there's certainly degrees of wrongness in the examples you're bringing up and downloading music. Stealing a pack of gum from 7/11 is wrong too, but I would never compare it to something like murder. Why are you doing that with the music thing?

You commented in the other thread that it's your birthright to only respect laws that respect you (and presumably not the other ones?). I think that's our disconnect on this one.

[JSngry]

If he downloaded it, it was probably FLAC files not MP3s. Rapidshare has ultimately deleted 2 such groups of files at my request.

Sadly, I think that makes the distinction between CD-Rs and downloads simply a piece of cheap plastic: IIRC, FLAC files (loss-less encoding) can be re-encoded to WAV files, and burned.

Original source material (CD) --> FLAC --> posted to Rapidshare (for instance) --> downloaded --> converted to WAV --> CD-R

The resulting CD-R is BIT-FOR-BIT identical to the original source on CD.

(please correct me if I'm wrong)

That "distinction" is nevertheless crucial, because it's the converted file that is being sold as an object, and (for the time being anyway) can be sold, simply because of the current collective perception of what an "object" is, and make no mistake, it is the "object" that is being sold. Ain't nobody gonna pay that much just for files to download. At least not in the forseeable future.

That distinction also raises the issue of not all downloads being equal. FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files compromise the sound. So it could be argued that mp3 ultimately = cassette copying between/amongst friends (or more accurately "friends"), whereas FLAC = Morris Levy counterfeiting everybody else's LPs.

[JSngry]

Yeah, that's bullshit. This guy is reproducing and selling analog material in an analog domain. He's creating hard, not virtual, copies, and he's selling what is not his to sell.

Cut and dried theft, by well-established rules and precedents. Is that so hard to figure out?

Duh.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit.

In either case, the rightful people received no compensation.

Your tunnel vision is your prerogative, so as long as you're at it, why don't you ask proponents of euthanasia (or even better, pro-choice advocates) if they feel "ok" with a drive-by or a mass murder or if they think it's "wrong"? Put that lack of nuanced thinking on full display for us, ok?

And to be perfectly honest, if that kid had a choice between downloading a free copy of the box off of some blog, or paying beaucoup bodacious bucks for it from some "speculator" on eBay, I'd encourage him/her to download it from the blog - if all they wanted was to hear the music and not own an "object". But not before encouraging him/her to contacting Chuck first to see what the man himself could do.

Excuse me now. I just heard a song on the radio that i like, and it's the fourth time today I've heard it. 20th time over the last two weeks. I now have a moral obligation to buy it.

Hearing a song on the radio is apples and oranges, or else I don't get the comparison. I don't get that it's ok to download something that you aren't entitled to, but it's wrong to make copies of it physically and sell it. Either way it's wrong, isn't it?

And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong?

You keep trying to correlate the music thing with murder and other horrible crime (here and in our previous discussion about this), but it's simply not the same thing. What's wrong is wrong in either case, but there's certainly degrees of wrongness in the examples you're bringing up and downloading music. Stealing a pack of gum from 7/11 is wrong too, but I would never compare it to something like murder. Why are you doing that with the music thing?

You commented in the other thread that it's your birthright to only respect laws that respect you (and presumably not the other ones?). I think that's our disconnect on this one.

We have many disconnects on this one, not the least of which is your distinguishing between "degrees" of "wrong" on damn near everything but "illegal" downloading (and btw - I'm not sure that blog "sharing" is clearly "illegal" just yet. The Fair Use clause is hardly airtight. Yet...). I know we all have our quirks and inconsistencies (I know I sure do), but when it comes out that you really don't have concerns about "fair" artist compensation for things like BMG/etc sales, I'm left asking myself what is the overriding principle here? Industry lapdog? Blind adherence to any and all laws, regardless of how incongruous/irrelevant they may be? I'm left looking for the "music lover" angle in all this and just not seeing it, unless it's that the industry is irretrievably changing and you're going to do your part to keep it from happening. I respect your gumption, really i do, but...let me know how that works out for both you and the industry, ok? You can fight the new battles yet to be fought, or you can fight the old ones already lost.

And btw - this

And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong?

is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony!

[Indestructible!]

If he downloaded it, it was probably FLAC files not MP3s. Rapidshare has ultimately deleted 2 such groups of files at my request.

Chuck,

Not to bring you down further, but I noticed that your AEC box was posted on a very large (probably the largest in terms of number of users) private tracker a little while ago. It was definitely a set of FLAC files, and as of now it had been downloaded over 250 times. But hey, the good news... the booklet wasn't posted!

Unfortunately, there's no way anyone at the tracker would ever take the set down, no matter how much you might complain to them. Well, I guess if you spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ on lawyer fees they might listen...

I symapthize with your plight, Chuck... but man, I just don't see any way the "old" model/philosophy is "coming back" in time for you to see any compensation. My only hope is that a "new" model can ensure that everyone can benefit somewhat (fan, artist, producer, etc.).

Cheers,

Shane

[Uncle Skid]

That distinction also raises the issue of not all downloads being equal. FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files compromise the sound. So it could be argued that mp3 ultimately = cassette copying between/amongst friends (or more accurately "friends"), whereas FLAC = Morris Levy counterfeiting everybody else's LPs.

There are a couple of flaws with that argument: mp3s can be copied ad infinitum, while each generation of cassette copies get worse. Also, with ever-increasing bandwidth, high-bit rate MP3s are already common, and increasingly indistinguishable from original WAV files.

[papsrus]

That "distinction" is nevertheless crucial, because it's the converted file that is being sold as an object, and (for the time being anyway) can be sold, simply because of the current collective perception of what an "object" is, and make no mistake, it is the "object" that is being sold. Ain't nobody gonna pay that much just for files to download. At least not in the forseeable future.

If I understand the argument, you're saying that a physical object (a CD) has to be involved for an improper transfer (theft) of the music to occur? And if I do understand this correctly, how does the argument address the inevitability (we're told) of the demise of the CD, when there is no physical object anymore? (Or, in the case of music that is today sold only in digital format? ... The Dave Douglas Live at the Jazz Standard comes to mind.)

It's a complicated problem, so I'm not getting evangelical on the issue or anything. Just probing.

[Aggie87]

And btw - this

And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong?

is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony!

Thanks.

I think I better just agree that we disagree and move on. I clearly don't see this the same way as the majority of people here or elsewhere.

I know the industry is changing. I will continue to enjoy CDs and vinyl though, thanks very much.

[JSngry]

That distinction also raises the issue of not all downloads being equal. FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files compromise the sound. So it could be argued that mp3 ultimately = cassette copying between/amongst friends (or more accurately "friends"), whereas FLAC = Morris Levy counterfeiting everybody else's LPs.

There are a couple of flaws with that argument: mp3s can be copied ad infinitum, while each generation of cassette copies get worse. Also, with ever-increasing bandwidth, high-bit rate MP3s are already common, and increasingly indistinguishable from original WAV files.

Wellsir, right there you have the crux of the Industry's Pandora's Box, the core of why things ain't never gonna be like they used to be.

And who was it who opened Pandora's Box? Pandora her own self.

[JSngry]

That "distinction" is nevertheless crucial, because it's the converted file that is being sold as an object, and (for the time being anyway) can be sold, simply because of the current collective perception of what an "object" is, and make no mistake, it is the "object" that is being sold. Ain't nobody gonna pay that much just for files to download. At least not in the forseeable future.

If I understand the argument, you're saying that a physical object (a CD) has to be involved for an improper transfer (theft) of the music to occur? And if I do understand this correctly, how does the argument address the inevitability (we're told) of the demise of the CD, when there is no physical object anymore? (Or, in the case of music that is today sold only in digital format? ... The Dave Douglas Live at the Jazz Standard comes to mind.)

It's a complicated problem, so I'm not getting evangelical on the issue or anything. Just probing.

Probe away, because right now, I don't think that anybody really knows anything.

I will say, though, that on my own "scale" that blogging of long OOP material is far less a crime than selling CDRs of copywritten material. And that there's plenty - infinite amounts, probably - of "in between" in between.

Case in point: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/ Does anybody really have a beef with this type shit? I doubt it.

Now, the question becomes this - when does "our" shit become this shit? And that's an evolution in progress (is there any other type of evolution, btw?), and frankly, I don't know. Time alone will be the decider on that one.

But i will say this -when I come across blogged LP rips of Shirley Scott Cadet sides that are, like, 35 years old (and probably almost that much OOP), things I've never once seen "real" copies of, albums that have never been reissued, and probably never will be reissued, I feel like I have been presented with a shared gift, whereas if I come across a blogged version of that Dave Douglas thing you mention (& I haven't, I don't go looking for that type thing), I feel like I did when some crackhead offered me a half pack of cigarettes that they had just lifted out of somebody's coat pocket.

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

[Uncle Skid]

That distinction also raises the issue of not all downloads being equal. FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files compromise the sound. So it could be argued that mp3 ultimately = cassette copying between/amongst friends (or more accurately "friends"), whereas FLAC = Morris Levy counterfeiting everybody else's LPs.

There are a couple of flaws with that argument: mp3s can be copied ad infinitum, while each generation of cassette copies get worse. Also, with ever-increasing bandwidth, high-bit rate MP3s are already common, and increasingly indistinguishable from original WAV files.

Wellsir, right there you have the crux of the Industry's Pandora's Box, the core of why things ain't never gonna be like they used to be.

And who was it who opened Pandora's Box? Pandora her own self.

Agreed.

But, here's the crux of this thread: you appear to be implying that downloading the entire AEC box set is OK, under certain circumstances. I think Erik and I are just saying that this in unacceptable, under any and all conditions, aside from one: Chuck's (and/or the AEC's) explicit blessing.

As an aside, I think blogs like destination: OUT have a great "model for the future": write intelligently about the music, post samples of the music (with permission) -- create a buzz about the music without blatant thievery.

It can be done, box full of evils not withstanding.

[JSngry]

And btw - this

And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong?

is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony!

Thanks.

I think I better just agree that we disagree and move on. I clearly don't see this the same way as the majority of people here or elsewhere.

I know the industry is changing. I will continue to enjoy CDs and vinyl though, thanks very much.

Hey man, I know you're a good guy, and honest, there's nothing personal in any of this. I do respect your personal choices even if I don't quite understand the broader conclusions that seem to project from them on to some of the rest of us.

But hell, I've loaned money to people I've had bigger issues with than this!

So yeah, it's all good.

[JSngry]

But, here's the crux of this thread: you appear to be implying that downloading the entire AEC box set is OK, under certain circumstances. I think Erik and I are just saying that this in unacceptable, under any and all conditions, aside from one: Chuck's (and/or the AEC's) explicit blessing.

And I'm saying that absolutes, unmovable, unyielding absolutes, exist as nothing other than the endpoints between which reality is positioned.

If you discover a different reality, congratulations. I just hope that it actually is a reality...

[Jim Alfredson]

Not to bring you down further, but I noticed that your AEC box was posted on a very large (probably the largest in terms of number of users) private tracker a little while ago. It was definitely a set of FLAC files, and as of now it had been downloaded over 250 times. But hey, the good news... the booklet wasn't posted!

Just curious: Is the new organissimo on there yet?

[John L]

I see the distinction here not as CDR versus download, (1) but the desire to make out-of-print music produced and owned by somebody else either available for free distribution or for profit, and (2) the deliberate deception in hiding the fact that the music is a private copy.

Somebody who puts the music up on a blog for free download is also in the wrong. Charging in addition $50 for it is much more wrong. Advertising it as a CD box set as if it were legit commerical CDs and not CDRs is much much more wrong.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

if chuck sues that guy, can i be an exprert witness in the category of sun ra

[RDK]

That "distinction" is nevertheless crucial, because it's the converted file that is being sold as an object, and (for the time being anyway) can be sold, simply because of the current collective perception of what an "object" is, and make no mistake, it is the "object" that is being sold. Ain't nobody gonna pay that much just for files to download. At least not in the forseeable future.

If I understand the argument, you're saying that a physical object (a CD) has to be involved for an improper transfer (theft) of the music to occur? And if I do understand this correctly, how does the argument address the inevitability (we're told) of the demise of the CD, when there is no physical object anymore? (Or, in the case of music that is today sold only in digital format? ... The Dave Douglas Live at the Jazz Standard comes to mind.)

It's a complicated problem, so I'm not getting evangelical on the issue or anything. Just probing.

Probe away, because right now, I don't think that anybody really knows anything.

I will say, though, that on my own "scale" that blogging of long OOP material is far less a crime than selling CDRs of copywritten material. And that there's plenty - infinite amounts, probably - of "in between" in between.

Case in point: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/ Does anybody really have a beef with this type shit? I doubt it.

Now, the question becomes this - when does "our" shit become this shit? And that's an evolution in progress (is there any other type of evolution, btw?), and frankly, I don't know. Time alone will be the decider on that one.

But i will say this -when I come across blogged LP rips of Shirley Scott Cadet sides that are, like, 35 years old (and probably almost that much OOP), things I've never once seen "real" copies of, albums that have never been reissued, and probably never will be reissued, I feel like I have been presented with a shared gift, whereas if I come across a blogged version of that Dave Douglas thing you mention (& I haven't, I don't go looking for that type thing), I feel like I did when some crackhead offered me a half pack of cigarettes that they had just lifted out of somebody's coat pocket.

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

Could not agree more!

[JSngry]

Somebody who puts the music up on a blog for free download is also in the wrong

Sounds good in theory, is good in a lot of ways, but again i gotta ask - how wrong is this guy: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/

[Uncle Skid]

But, here's the crux of this thread: you appear to be implying that downloading the entire AEC box set is OK, under certain circumstances. I think Erik and I are just saying that this in unacceptable, under any and all conditions, aside from one: Chuck's (and/or the AEC's) explicit blessing.

And I'm saying that absolutes, unmovable, unyielding absolutes, exist as nothing other than the endpoints between which reality is positioned.

If you discover a different reality, congratulations. I just hope that it actually is a reality...

I'm genuinely puzzled by your apparent confidence in the ambiguity of this specific case.

I predict chas will be along shortly to chastise all of us, and attempt to re-frame this discussion in terms of the injustice of (and ever-increasing length of) existing copyright laws.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Uncle Skid

[RDK]

But, here's the crux of this thread: you appear to be implying that downloading the entire AEC box set is OK, under certain circumstances. I think Erik and I are just saying that this in unacceptable, under any and all conditions, aside from one: Chuck's (and/or the AEC's) explicit blessing.

I have much less problem with someone posting this for free on a blog than with Saturn charging someone for what is essentially a pirated product. In part, the set is oop - Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more - but I'd also prefer to think that at least the bloggers are sharing it for the love of the music rather than, like Saturn, to make a buck off of someone else's work. I understand that this could cut into potential future sales - but "potential" is the key word here. I doubt if even a tenth of those (250 was it?) who downloaded this for free would ever actually buy the product even if it was available. Meanwhile, 250 people are exposed to the music. Small consolation to Chuck, I know, and the only advise I can offer aside from printing more (which doesn't sound feasible) is to make this set available on iTunes or emusic - or for Chuck to sell a limited number of CDRs; copies on demand is another way to tackle the issue.

[RDK]

WOW.

This just in from my email:

Hi Peter,

I heard from Chuck, and thought I'd forward his email and my response.

I will be removing the item from inventory tonight.

Please make sure Chuck takes his blood-pressure medication, OK?

Best to you,

Scott

Amazing how someone will do something illegal, and when they're caught, will try and make it seem as if someone else has done something wrong. Whatever happened to accepting responsibility for one's actions?

That became outmoded thinking under the Bush Administration. No accountability became the national moral standard, with robbing, stealing and cheating becoming the ideal.

Oh please! Can we stop blaming Bush for all crimes since the Dawn of Man? Bootlegging, pirating, and yes, even no accountability has been going on for decades, if not centuries and millenia. All such hyperbole does is ruin one's credibilty.

[John L]

Somebody who puts the music up on a blog for free download is also in the wrong

Sounds good in theory, is good in a lot of ways, but again i gotta ask - how wrong is this guy: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/

Noted. Since this guy is working in Europe with public domain material, there is nothing illegal at all. The degree to which making available out-of-print material for free download is "wrong" is indeed debatable.

[Jazzmoose]

Oh please! Can we stop blaming Bush for all crimes since the Dawn of Man? Bootlegging, pirating, and yes, even no accountability has been going on for decades, if not centuries and millenia. All such hyperbole does is ruin one's credibilty.

Yes, but apparently before Bush, criminals felt guilty about their acts...

[Rooster_Ties]

But i will say this -when I come across blogged LP rips of Shirley Scott Cadet sides that are, like, 35 years old (and probably almost that much OOP), things I've never once seen "real" copies of, albums that have never been reissued, and probably never will be reissued, I feel like I have been presented with a shared gift, whereas if I come across a blogged version of that Dave Douglas thing you mention (& I haven't, I don't go looking for that type thing), I feel like I did when some crackhead offered me a half pack of cigarettes that they had just lifted out of somebody's coat pocket.

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

Amen, brother. Amen.

[Daniel A]

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

As I look at it, there's a distinction as to the degree of potential economic damage, but not when it comes to the violation of the intellectual rights.

[JSngry]

But, here's the crux of this thread: you appear to be implying that downloading the entire AEC box set is OK, under certain circumstances. I think Erik and I are just saying that this in unacceptable, under any and all conditions, aside from one: Chuck's (and/or the AEC's) explicit blessing.

And I'm saying that absolutes, unmovable, unyielding absolutes, exist as nothing other than the endpoints between which reality is positioned.

If you discover a different reality, congratulations. I just hope that it actually is a reality...

I'm genuinely puzzled by your apparent confidence in the ambiguity of this specific case.

I have no ambiguity at all about this specific case. Read back, it's there - this Saturn outfit blows. Unambiguously so.

Now if you're talking about downloading the AEC box now that it's out of print, hell yeah I'm ambiguous, relevant to the scenario (which of course includes time, place, motivation, parallel opportunities, etc.). I'd chastise myself if I wasn't, because the net effect of that would be joining The I've Got It, You Don't, So If You Don't Have What It Takes To Get In NOW, Then Fuck You, Chump Club which you & I both know is ultimately far more destructive to the things we hold dear in life than is some virtual Hey Dude, Let Me Get A Copy Of That From You, Whaddya Say?

Also keep in mind that "ambiguity" covers the entire spectrum of scenarios, by no means all of them benevolent, either immediately or long-term. Considering one without considering them all equally is a fool's game, both practically and intellectually.